I admit that I am equally shocked and dismayed that so many people seem to think that silencing and canceling is an intelligent approach to disagreement. I am tempted to conclude that this is due to a generation of "got a trophy for competing" folks, but that is, frankly, too simplistic and a bit condescending as well. As Jonathan implied, it is impossible to "win" the battle of ideas by silencing your combatants. You must meet them on the field and defeat them openly and in plain view.
Whites are sowing the seeds of their own destruction by wielding power in the wrong way...not really seriously looking for answers to their self-destruction...shifting their bad behavior on someone else. Lies serves purpose... keeps them from accepting responsibility...
Dixiecrats switched to the GOP because they were vehemently opposed to civil rights for blacks. I live in the deep South and white Republicans now fly the Confederate flag.Your logical fallacies? The current GOP is the Trump party. White extremists like Richard Spencer, Jared Taylor, David Duke, etc. were thrilled to death after Trump was elected president. I used to rescue naive proud boys from Aryan Brother hood prison gang rape.
If anybody accepts The broad-based logical tenets your son is professing then we are doomed. People are allowed to have disagreements but there is no need to be disagreeable or aggressive with one another. Your son can do whatever he wants, other people can think whatever they want about it. Whatever somebody might choose to believe or not believe based upon what another person thinks about them is foolish. People need to stand up and be strong and accept that others acceptance or rejection of their life it's not hate it's just a difference of opinions.
If you're going to be bold and daring in life you need to have courage of your convictions and stand your ground. Forcing everybody to accept you, to love you, to support you, or to seek to cancel those that do not, is a Fool's errand and makes those who could choose to be strong weaker than they ever would have been otherwise.
It is a manifestation of hate to believe a person deserves the sort of punishment as has been variously described by the Catholic church for people who don't follow its creed. It not simply a " difference of opiniom." The perspective the Catholic church has towards homosexuals is hateful.
But, whatever, I see what and why they hate, and I judge it as immoral and shameful. I don't view hate itself as immoral though. Expressing or condoning hatred of what is innocent or good is immoral though. And I righteously judge the Catholic church as a doctrine of sin. And I do so without any desire to use violence to prevent them from sharing their views. I think Catholics should be legally allowed to live in sin. The sin they commit isn't at the level where I'd view it as something that should be a crime. Catholics should be allowed to legally worship imaginary evil deities and try to convince others to do the same. And I should be legally allowed to point out their sin. And not to be " disagreeable" with a person's sin, by the way, is often a sin.
Who cares what one group thinks about another, and how does it matter to any person in the real world - unless you give them validation by believing what they say or choosing to fight them?
Never in our history has there been an easier time to just 'walk away' from what you don't like, support, etc. Just because you may disagree with another's belief systems, be they religious or political, does not make it hate speech.
There will always be another person, another group, another belief system right behind the one you feel you must confront, to then be confronted. This leads to a Don Quixote empty life tilting at windmills, mistaking them for foes.
There are different kinds of “disagreement”. If a person expresses “disagreement”with another person’s belief or behavior and there is no enmity, then it is certainly not hate speech. However, some disagreements derive from enmity about another person’s belief or behavior.
You are correct with the statement “ Just because you may disagree with another's belief systems, be they religious or political, does not make it hate speech.”. But it’s banal. Most people when they disagree with another person’s religious or political belief systems aren’t just disagreeing about a fact they find irrelevant to what they care about. Political and religious systems are deeply personal. A persons sense of belonging and honor are wrapped up in them. Thus, challenging them, or disparaging them is going can affect people more. And likewise simply sharing them is sharing values, and not just facts. If those values express underlining hatred of something, it can constitute “hate speech”. If those values express underlining honor of something it can constitute … “love speech”?
Personally I find the phrase “hate speech” loathsome, as it has a connotation that hate is essentially immoral, and ironically the people who deploy the phrase deploy it with hate. They hate “hate speech.” “Hate speech”, the phrase, *is hate speech* when expressed by someone who thinks it’s immoral to hate.
And your argument for not confronting belief systems or other people because it will be like forever or something is silly. If people just let poisonous belief systems take over the world, Scientologists would be running everything. The notion that everyone should just abandon their confrontations out of futility is a sure path to failure. And a guarantee that those few who don’t, who are probably going to be the most obnoxious or evil in the world, will acquire the most power.
A person is only being quixotic if what they are battling is benign, when they think it is not. Catholicism isn’t benign, and we have 2000 years of oppression and witch hunts to prove that.
And Don Quixote’s life wasn’t empty at all. You must never have read the book. His life was full of adventure.
An empty life is one that always “walks away” from every confrontation, cowardly or complacent. A worthless life, useful to no one. A life without foes, is a life without friends.
Why single out just Catholics when most of the world’s major religions condemn homosexuality? Eg Baptists, Pentecostals, etc. seems like you hate Catholics.
Uhh, because the Catholic catechism was brought up in the original clip.
I don’t hate Catholics, but I may qualify as “hating” Christianity, the religion, in general, depending on the definition of the word “hate”. And Christianity would include Protestant Christianity, and not just Catholic Christianity. I also have a similar attitude about other major world religions like Buddhism.
I have to say that it seems that Glenn, usually reliant on data and evidence (n > 30 samples) is very reliant on anecdotes about his son here. I'm a Catholic. What our catechism is accused of saying here, it says. I stand by it and by the Church. That doesn't mean that I'm going to accost anyone, or that anyone is going to kill themselves now that the CCC says what it says, or that Catholics believing what we believe is really even wrong. It can be thought wrong here in a secular context, but that's not the end of the argument. I like the pluralistic argument put forth by Mr. Rausch, and I think many, many of us religious traditionalists were ready to make this accommodation in the culture with our LGBT fellow citizens until Big Business and Government got involved and started to make LGBT matters a moral litmus test for the people of this country. We have to dissent and disagree vehemently with each other, and that has to be OK, or this whole thing, this whole enterprise is over. Glenn Loury should take a moment and understand Christian and Catholic anthropology before simply falling back on anecdote and emotion.
The Catholic catechism is a heap of sin. But even though Catholics live in sin by worshipping their imaginary evil god, and often try to recruit others to, I believe they should face no threat to to their livihoods from their employers. I have no problem working or living alongside Catholics regardless of their sinful lifestyle, as long as they are sufficiently civilized. Catholics can be great citizens -- and they can be overall great people. And we should embrace people as citizens and neighbors from many faiths, even abominations like Catholicism.
Jehovah is an evil character. Worshipping imaginary evil characters is sinful. The CCC is grounded on obedience and faith in a monstrous fantasy. It promotes faith as a virtue, but not reason. Which isn't surprising because one needs to abandon reason to have faith in Christian mythology. Without reason as a virtue, any other potential virtue is going to be deeply susceptible to corruption, which goes along way of explaining much of the sordid history of the catholic church.
Catholics are sinners because they worship an imaginary evil deity and don't place reason as a fundamental virtue. It is shameful not to place reason as a fundamental virtue.
I didn't say faithful Catholics make great citizens, I just said Catholics can be great citizens --regardless of their faith. A faithful catholic can be a great citizen, or a fuzzy catholic can be a great citizen. People can be great citizens, despite the sin of being a catholic, that is the important part.
From that paradigm how is it possible for anyone of faith to engage in a meaningful, good faith discussion?
And from that seed of thought how could one not feel that you would then say that anyone who follows the teachings of Christ is also not evil?
And then, the $64,000 question, what do you choose to say, feel, do, and pay for so that your belief that "Jehovah is evil" will be supported and furthered?
Naturally, it is your right to believe whatever you want, but it is also the right of all others to disagree. You have a right to believe what you want, but you also have a responsibility to accept the beliefs of others in a spirit of tolerance and respect.
The Bible is filled with passages describing various people, ideas, and behavior as evil, wicked, or an abomination. Why are you so astonished when the people the main characters of the bible threaten with violence for stupid reasons don’t like the main characters?
Otherwise not evil people can worship evil characters out of foolishness and immorality. But not all immorality is at the level to categorize it as evil. Evil is a certain degree and kind of immorality. Everyone who loved Mao was not evil. Children loved Mao. They were ignorant and not old enough that their reasoning faculties had developed in any significant degree. It would be wrong to judge them as evil.
“ And then, the $64,000 question, what do you choose to say, feel, do, and pay for so that your belief that "Jehovah is evil" will be supported and furthered?”
Huh? I masturbate? I buy God Is Not Great? I comment on substack? I encourage Christians to denounce their religion?
“ You have a right to believe what you want, but you also have a responsibility to accept the beliefs of others in a spirit of tolerance and respect.”
I absolutely do not have any duty to “accept the beliefs of others in a spirit of tolerance and respect.” If “intolerance” and “disrespect” means simply expressing my contempt for a belief or ridiculing a belief, I have a right to do that. And others have a right to do that. Both morally and legally. We shouldn’t “respect” beliefs founded on irrational faith and the delusions of perverse souls. Let me be explicit: I disrespect your belief that people have a responsibility to respect all beliefs and I feel it is virtuous to disrespect some beliefs, including the one you just expressed. You should honor the previous sentence I wrote.
There is something in the US called the first amendment, which wonderfully establishes a legal right to express as much contempt and disdain a person wishes toward an idea. Some ideas are worthy of a lot of contempt. For example: the idea that humanity is so sinful it needed a crazy deity to murder its child, who is somehow itself, as a sacrifice for that sin so that same god doesn’t torture humanity due to that deities wrath for aeons is worthy of lots of contempt. And laughter.
You didn't say it, but I did, and it's true - Catholics make excellent citizens. You have some anger and I don't think Catholicism has anything to do with it. Best of luck to you.
Of course I have anger. It's righteous anger. But it's actually just a trickle in comparison to the *wrath* that flows through the Bible. And it is the wrath of lunatics. Not at all virtuous.
Does your comment to me reflect your thoughts about anger when you read about Jesus expressing it?
"Oh gee willickers he has some anger! Best of luck to him!" LOL.
There is nothing essentially wrong or shameful about anger. We *should* have anger sometimes. It's *virtuous* sometimes.
I understand this could be something very confusing, being someone who worships an evil imaginary being that disparages rationality and routinely equates love with obedience and slavery.
It would be virtuous for you to renounce the Catholic church, Jesus, and Jehovah. A trinity of wickedness.
And you are right, in some sense Catholicism has nothing to do with my anger. Anger is just is simply one part of my nature. And my reason and moral sense leads Catholicism to be one object of my anger, sometimes. I haven't actually thought of Catholicism much lately. After all, it has become relatively weak--say compared to the Church of Woke. I hear the pope is thinking of changing his pronoun.
And of course best of luck to you on your path of sin!
"There is nothing essentially wrong or shameful about anger. We *should* have anger sometimes. It's *virtuous* sometimes."
Couldn't have been said better Vladimir Illyich Lenin, when asked whether he wanted 10 million or 100 million dead to accomplish his aims and establish his belief system over man.
The Catholic church -actually most churches-would have a few things to say about my lifestyle, but I don’t feel remotely inclined to kill myself nor has anyone from the Catholic church told me I should, nor that I’m worthless. Too many pussies looking for affirmation. Why not be brave enough to live your life is what I say.
If a person doesn't need affirmation they are a sociopath. If a person does need it, but believe they dont, they are a delusional narcissist. Most humans need affirmation to thrive from the moment they are born. The minority who don't are soulless vampires. Unfortunately a disproportionate number manage to acquire power and spread evil lies about not needing love and fools believe it and spread it like ants that bring poison back to their colony believing it is food.
I can think of any number of people who never needed "affirmation" and were perfectly fine. I don't think John Roebling was looking for affirmation for a single minute as he was designing the Brooklyn Bridge. Neither was his son as he built the bridge while bedridden from Caissons disease. My grandmother drove a car until she was 92 and even then, still walked to her hair appointment every two weeks, and I know she never needed a pat on the head. Douglas Haig, leading the BEF on the Western Front in 1916? I bet affirmation was the last thing on his mind.
Such thoughts are the thoughts of late 20th Century Americans and as one, I know we are the weakest and most entitled people on the planet and these two things, our weakness and our need to be affirmed, are inextricably connected.
If you think none of these people needed affirmation and they weren’t sociopaths you are naive to how much affirmation people get without even realizing it. People generally “take for granted” the affirmation they get. The fact that your grandmother actually was *allowed to get a hair cut* and she wasn’t blocked from getting her hair cut because of her race, or her age, or her sex, or her religion, is a form of affirmation.
How often do you disgustingly pretend to eat the body of your god and drink it’s blood? How often do you kneel in front of a “holy man “ that represents in your mind the agent of an *omnipotent creator of the universe* and get a cracker stuck in your mouth? How often do you get that “pat on the head”?
You are fragile and you take for granted all the affirmation you receive. And then you express contempt toward people who express a need for affirmation. So disgraceful. And it’s ironic given how much ad nausea the New Testament goes on about how dependent and utterly powerless people supposedly are without Jesus and his divine affirmation.
Douglas Haig, without his men, without his comrades, without his friends, and without the affirmation he had received from them—without their loyalty and respect, he would not have been Douglas Haig.
Most of us, the ones who aren’t monsters, need affirmation like we need water. Unfortunately some people, to their shame, satiated with affirmation, forget they even need it, and ridicule the thirsty. Perhaps they should be exiled from civilization until they come crawling back, on their knees, begging for a “pat on their head” to humble their inflated and irrational pride.
White racist democrats created their own group in 1948 called the Dixiecrats. Dixiecrats were staunch segregationists and didn't support Civil Rights for Blacks. These Dixiecrats eventually switched over to the Republican Party. The late South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond (R), a devout segregationist, switched from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party because he didn't support the passing of Civil Rights legislation for Blacks. Late Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater (R), a staunch conservative and who ran against LBJ (D) for president, was adamantly against the passage of the 1960s Civil Rights Legislation. Many Black Republicans then switched over to the Democratic Party. Civil rights were the major reason white racist democrats (Dixiecrats) switched to the Republican Party. President Truman, a Democrat, was actually responsible for desegregating the armed forces in 1948, at which time white racists defected from the Democratic Party to create the Dixiecrats who eventually became far right-wing Republicans with anti-black views. LBJ twisted arms of white politicians and eventually signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, 1965 Voting Rights Law, and Equal Housing in 1968. The old radical Republicans who created Reconstruction and the Freedman Bureau for Blacks after the end of the Civil War are certainly not the same radical Republicans we have today. Today's Republican Party: THE SOUTHERN STRATEGY. --- "You start out in 1954 by saying, “Ni**er, n**er, ni**er.” By 1968, you can’t say “ni**er”—that hurts you, backfires.
So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much Part III: more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Ni**er, ni**er.” -- Lee Altwater, GOP STRATEGIST."
I recommend you read my essay on the history of the Democratic Party and its legacy of slavery. It seems you have imbibed a fountain of Democratic Party propaganda. The Democratic Party is the Party of Slavery. And it will continue to be until it reckons with its past and redeems itself. But I don't think it ever will.
The Symbolic Betrayal of the Black Race: In his book, “Black Labor White Wealth”, Dr. Claude Anderson relates," the term Uncle Tom is not an appropriate label for an individual who is “white on the inside and black on the outside” and sells out his race by placing his personal gains with whites ahead of the rights and gains of his people. Contrary to popular usage of the label, the character Tom was not the culprit in Uncle Tom’s Cabin. Uncle Tom was a brave man with dignity who cared about his family and race. The real villain was another black slave named Sambo. He was totally committed to the white master and used every opportunity to undermine the other slaves.Sambo, in many respects, was like today’s black conservatives. Sambo always followed the white slave master, Simon Legree, and offered to show him how to “tree the coons.” It was black Sambo who beat Uncle to death for both refusing to whip a black female slave or sell out his people. Uncle Tom tried to empower his people by undermining and beating the social structure whenever he could. Uncle Tom felt it was important to get his people across the river to freedom. He risked his life to do so. The Sambo character personifies a very successful social control construct created by conservatives. He was such a successful phenomenon that the concept he personified became a greater danger to blacks than Uncle Tom. As blacks move towards structuring policies of racial accountability, it will be very important for them to know who helps and who hurts the race. Sambo was the black slave character in numerous novels and movies who was willing to pick up a weapon and defend his white master against the approaching Union army or hide the master’s silver from Northern carpetbaggers. What is the difference between the fictional Sambo characters and today’s real-life blacks who join the conservative movement to argue against affirmative action, black reparations, and set-asides? They declare that the world is now color blind and are opposed to any policies requiring whites to share the socioeconomic burden that centuries of slavery and second class citizenship have imposed on blacks. Isn’t espousing a color blind, race-neutral, melting pot society, a moderate way of hiding master’s silver? What are black conservatives conserving when black America is burdened by poverty, crime, unemployment, homelessness, and other social pathologies? Based upon historical treatment alone, there should be a general antagonism between blacks and conservatives. Though conservatives claim that they are not racist, for centuries, they have opposed programs and policies to help blacks. Andrew Hacker, a white writer, provided insight on this in his new book, Two Nations: Black and White, Separate, Hostile, and Unequal. Hacker asserted that: “There persists the belief that members of the black race represent an inferior strain of the human species…Of course, the belief is seldom voiced in public. Most whites who call themselves conservatives hold this view about blacks and proclaim it when they are sure of their company. Since white conservatives share their true feelings only in the privacy of other whites, there is a strong possibility that black conservatives do not know how white conservatives truly feel about them.”
Nipping it in the bud, both parties are owned and controlled by the white dominant group. The white liberals just shuffle the chairs on a sinking ship to make blacks feel good, with symbolic gestures and lack of tangibles. White conservatives just sink the ship. Blacks should first concentrate on building black group wealth and power. Then create their own independent political party in order to effectively deal on a quid pro quo basis with both parties to better address their needs. What are black conservatives ( meritorious manumission negroes) conserving? From who? Increasingly depending on whites for basic necessities to sustain life is self destructive.
“ Increasingly depending on whites for basic necessities to sustain life is self destructive.”
We need to depend on other people to sustain the basic necessities of life. Judging our potential dependencies based on their race and not their character is foolish and a vice. If you haven’t found any people who happen to be white in your life you can trust, respect, and love, I can only suspect it’s because you have actively avoided it. Shunning good people who are white because of racial grievances is self destructive.
“ Blacks should first concentrate on building black group wealth and power.”
Blacks should first concentrate on letting go of any old irrational bigotries.
If you're looking for a comfort negro to enable your nonsense, I'm not that guy. I don't need any white affirmation, especially coming from an ultra conservative white guy who belongs to a group with a history of horrors committed against people of color. You have a very cognitive dissonance demeanor in dismissing critical causes and effects (facts). Racism is an economic relationship between groups - a team sport. Europeans got the headstart program with free African labor, genocide, colonization, and structural racism (white authoritarianism).
At the end of the day, it's about White preservation by any means necessary (look at the GOP abuse of power today in an attempt to dilute Black empowerment).
Whites are projected to be the new majority-minority by 2043. Many Whites are feeling great anxiety, fear, anger, and rage about losing power.
You came into other people's land and just took what you wanted.The slave can't be the massa. Blacks never marginalized whites in this country like Whites did to Blacks. Police presence in affluent communities is less because of resources. That's universal in every country I have visited in the world. Our relationship now is just a quid pro quo coexistence. I'm not your boy! Your paternal and convuluted concept of racism is highly self-serving (maintaining the white status quo of wealth and power). I have nothing to prove to you (waste of time and energy).
It wasn’t until conservative northerners started moving south that the South became Republican. So it had more to do with anti-union and low taxes and Cold War than segregation when Republicans finally gained power.
“Riley Gaines 'ambushed and physically hit' after Saving Women's Sports speech at San Francisco State”. This was reported yesterday and she says she was hit by a “man in a dress “. The audacity of her to misgender! This is why we need free speech for some on campus but obviously can not allow Catholics and TERFs to voice their opinions. The man in the dress who hit her is the victim here because words are violence to her ears.
And when you say, "her ears," I assume you are referring to the ears of the man in the dress? Did I get that right? The astonishing modern plasticity of gender is making it hard to keep up. And the plasticity of the language that goes with it reminds me that centerpiece of the story of the Tower of Babel was not the tower, but the linguistic curse.
Yes, the man in the dress who did the punching is a her. Who knows? Maybe the man in the dress was pregnant and feeling like her day was ruined because of the speech.
Might have been hormonal irritability, just a simple matter of his encounter with Gaines coinciding with the time of the month when he was at his most feminine.
Biden’s rules thread the needle and will protect women’s NCAA scholarship sports from biological males. I’m sure Republicans will feign outrage that junior high girls cross country is being destroyed by biological males. ;)
The solution of course is to eliminate both men’s and women’s divisions and simply have one level playing field (pool, court, boxing ring, etc) in which both males and females can compete. No more “just for males”, just for females”, or need to make complicated legislation. Each public college, high school and grade school to have only one combined male and female teams for football, soccer, basketball ball, etc. The best will prevail and no need to separate them in anachronistic notions of gender. Trans rights are Human Rights!
Why is it feminist say that want to compete equally with men but then cry foul when you suggest they get on the same field? Could it be that they are not equal in some ways? Of course it could. How could women not see that by demanding to be on the boys and men’s teams, the day would come when the boys and men would demand to be on the female teams?
What’s wrong with a level playing field for both males and females? Seems aligned with principles of diversity, inclusion and equity. Having separate teams is obviously less diverse (because it eliminates one gender), less inclusive (because it doesn’t include one gender), and equity (because it treats genders as unequal by having them on different fields).
Tuesday night was held what is probably the first-ever public, open, debate on Diversity-Equity-Inclusion (DEI) on a U.S. college campus. The Adam Smith Society and the MIT Free Speech Alliance are delighted. We sponsored this to show that polite but strong disagreement on hot-button political issues could be openly expressed at an American university--- and MIT, in particular. No police were present, not threats were made, and the debate and audience questioning proceeded respectfully--- though not because the debaters didn’t stake out their positions in very strong and opposing terms. Our press release is up on the web at https://www.mitfreespeech.org/press-releases-and-press-information.
MIT had to be sued by every marginalized group before they ever adopt Equity. Women, Hearing Impaired, Indians, etc all had to sue MIT for equity. I say MIT should immediately distribute all its wealth and land to blacks as reparations. Equity of outcomes cannot wait another 100 years. Cash out and distribute your wealth now MIT and you will finally achieve Equity. Anything less is deception.
Exactly! Handouts are good for you. They’re so much better than actually earning money and all the hard work that goes with that. Handouts are best to achieve Equity.
It’s core to BLM, SF Reparations Committee and coming to Federal legislation near you. We should welcome Reparations and giving or getting of half the wealth and land of Whites because it will achieve Equity (where we all have the exact same and we’ll like it).
His so-called "argument" is as old as classical liberalism, which is better represented by today's right than the left. He is only restating what we already knew 300 years ago.
But Marxists don't care. The whole point of left wing totalitarianism is restriction of individual liberty, including speech, all under the banner of the common good.
Agree completely, there's certainly a strong undercurrent of safetyism here as well that those who want to engage and behavior perhaps considered outside the norm don't want anybody to ever question their decisions. Just not the way the world works, trying to force everyone to pretend to agree merely weakens them further. Live your life, do your thing, and let the dogs keep barking because the Caravan is moving on.
I think this is what separates the moderate left wing party of JFK from the neolib, radical left, whose utopia involves mechanized order, provided to you by their benevolent top-down, super-sized, federal government. Essentially, they want to give a centralized actor complete control over the means of production, all in the name of the common good, and for your safety and security. And if you didn't ask for their benevolent "protection", too bad, because you need them anyway.
It will lead to tyranny. Every tyrant in history has said to the people that all they needed was their weapons, and then everyone would live in paradise. They said all we need is your property, and everyone will live in unimaginable abundance and luxury. All we need is your trust, and everyone will live in peace. All we need is for you to curtail your speech and self expression, and the world will be a better place. Why don't you trust us? If you do, all your needs will be taken care of. We love you.
In reality, they demand obedience and the total destruction of your individuality, for their poorly constructed abstract conception of a Utopia. And when they realize they cannot reach their Utopia, they'll begin the witch hunt against fictious enemies that leads to Gulags, reeducation camps, followed by a 100M deaths, mostly from starvation. And while your family is starving, the "elites", "influencers" and all others deemed "necessary" and "essential" by state thugs will throw lavish banquets to satisfy their triumph over your conquered soul.
Well said. Any breach of the bill of rights calls for secession or war.
It seems not many peolple have read the gulag archipelago. Anytime someone runs on a platform of the government taking care of you, and helping you, and loving you, one ought to run in the opposite direction. We saw this same thing in Cuba. The totalitarian playbook is always the same. They will say we need lists of speech for the common good, for your own interest, for minorities, etc etc. They will start with pronouns, then expand the list until you cannot say anything at all. And until you own nothing and like it (because not liking it means gulags).
And for people who yell and scream minority as if they need special protection, well there is no greater minority than the individual. So any group imposing itself upon an individual is a thug, not a minority
That's incorrect. The argument in favor of free speech is a very old one. Classical liberalism, during the enlightenment, was predicated upon universality and inalienable rights.
The guest speaker is not arguing anything original; he's simply restating the universals that were promulgated during the enlightenment. We all have a right to self expression, and no special interest group, LGTBQ or otherwise, or state or individual has a right to legislate my speech using the shackles of the common good, which, incidentally, is precisely the argument the postmodernist neo-marxists make. They want to create lists of speech, that which is permissible and that which isn't, because, like Marx and Bentham, they are selfish enough to place their conception of the common good above individual rights.
The classical view is still the correct view. And I'm glad the speaker realizes that.
History is repeating itself now because of the changing demographics in this country. Ultra white conservatives are setting up sandbags to consolidate their raw power in the red states. Whites will be the new majority -minority population by 2043. Metro areas in the South (mostly minorities) are becoming increasingly powerful. However, red states are taking over local authority. Red states want to replace the feds authority in managing civil rights, etc.. Remnants of the old Confederacy are alive and well (states rights). That old script led to the 1st American Civil War. Are we approaching that point again with the very deep division in this country? Over 400 million firearms are out there.
Lets not forget which party was the Confederacy in the 1st civil war. If history does repeat itself, which I hope it does not, I suspect the party that will be fighting for slavery again will be the same one--just different masters this time around--if the way modern party ideologies relating to liberty reveals anything.
The Portuguese started the race to the new world with free African labor followed by 8 other European countries which pretty much started capitalism on steroids. Blacks weren't part of the race. They were the boot and loot. West African kings/leaders built wealth and power on the sale of Africans to the Europeans. In fact, they resisted the outlawing of the transatlantic slave trade during the early 1800s imposed by Britain and the U.S. Although slavery in America was still legal until the end of the Civil War. In early America, White Europeans were issued 2 billion acres of free Indian land. After finishing their 7-year contracts, white indentured servants were issued 640 acres of land and more based on the number of slaves they owned. The first Constitution is the White affirmative action/headstart program. The founding fathers first issued themselves thousands of acres of free Indian land before completing the writing of the Constitution. Insofar as the Black slave question, they met in secret with guards posted at all entrances and windows. The Constitution was written in broad and ambiguous language to camouflage the Black slave issue --- pursuit of happiness! Blacks were codified as 3/5 of a person. After the end of slavery, freed Black slaves left their plantations with no animals, no food, no tools, no money or firearms to protect themselves. Many were forced to return to the plantations as exploited share croppers, burying themselves deeply into debt at the land owners' stores. At that time, people could be thrown into jail for not paying their debts. The convict lease program was implemented to create free Black labor for White enterprises and the government. There was also the racist system of peonage. Blacks were literally kidnapped off the streets due to Black codes, i.e., vagrancy, being unemployed, preaching without permission, etc. The Freedman Bureau (financial aid) and reconstruction was set up by the radical Republicans to give assistance to freed slaves. These programs were very beneficial. However, the North withdrew union troops occupying the South which gave freed Blacks protection. The Freedman Bureau was eventually dissolved with the funds being transferred to southern land owners. The South began implementing brutal Jim Crow laws and policies, negatively affecting Blacks socio-economically and politically. The Supreme Court Decision, Plessy vs. Ferguson, legally enabled separate but equal policies. However, Blacks didn't really receive the same resources (i.e, school finance) or equal justice as whites. Jim Crow (semi-slavery) lasted for 100 years through the 1960s until the passage of the civil rights laws. Whites have mal-distributed wealth to themselves for the past 500 years based on slavery, Jim Crow, and ongoing structural racism. Blacks are 250 years behind economically due bring precluded from fully participating in American capitalism. Blacks only own and control 2% of the wealth in this country, which hasn't changed since the eve of the Civil War. Racism isn't about getting along. It's an economic relationship between groups of people competing for ownership and control of resources for wealth and power. Blacks need to develop their own economic infrastructure like other minority groups, i.e., Asians, Jews, Hispanics, and Arabs. Social integration damaged Black folks. Social integration isn't measurable; it can't be deposited into the bank. Blacks are increasingly losing the race with other minority competitors. The Koreans own and control the one billion dollar Black hair products industry --- manufacturing, distribution, and retail. Do Blacks own and control Korean restaurants or nail saloons? The Arabs, a much smaller minority group, owns and controls 98% of the gasoline stations and other small businesses in predominantly Black Detroit and throughout the country. Asians exchange money in their communities 10 to 15x more than Blacks in their communities before it leave. Blacks: Zero! If you ever get a chance, watch the YouTube video made in the 50s, "How to sell to the Negro." Nothing hasn't changed. Massa Biden got Black folks without any demands for real tangibles. Black folks d get another worthless symbolic gesture like Juneteenth. The old Black lady finally got her recognition and a pen from massa Biden. And the Asians got the final laugh. --- they're in the process of manufacturing Juneteenth products for 2022 Black celebrations. Snooze button back on. --- Joe Biden got elected. During a post election meeting with Black civil rights leaders in Atlanta, he related the Whites must pay more attention to Hispanics. For those of you Black folks who think you're in a comfortable coalition with Hispanics, you're fooling yourselves. *** [In his book, " Presumed Alliance: The Unspoken Conflict Between Blacks and Latinos and What It Means for America," the author, Nicolas C. Vaca, disdained a rainbow coalition and presumed alliance with Black Americans...they wanted to compete with Blacks for political and economic power...they felt that by the mere fact that they were more socially acceptable than Blacks in American society...they could gain socioeconomic benefits and become the nation's majority-minority population. Their goal, according to Vaca, was to displace Blacks in every way possible --- Dr. Claud Anderson, "A Black History Reader."
History may be repeating itself, but not how you're describing it here. One side is hostile to free speech, one side is using federal agencies to target political opponents, and one side is using the public education system as indoctrination camps to teach kids to hate each other. Amazing as it must be, it's not the red people doing that. I agree that there is division and the side that has most of the guns and knows how to use them is the one being targeted. That's not very sound strategy. Blue states, meanwhile, are devolving into chaos as criminals go unpunished, ironically victimizing the very minority communities these lenient prosecutors claim to champion.
That is why we need Reparations now! Mandated by the Fed to redistribute White money to blacks. The Democrats are in the best position now to execute a federal reparations program by taking 50% (aka “half”) of the money and land that every White over the age of 18 has and then giving it to a black person. Priority land will be given in order of suffering (eg black Trans, black Gay, black Woman, etc) until Equity with Whites and Asians has been met. We want Equity via Reparations Now!
This may come off as splitting hairs to some but specifically what the Catholic Church considers to be disordered are homosexual acts. Merely experiencing same-sex attraction is not considered to be sinful according to the CC.
What about sexual desire for a man who is not your wife?
Personally I have not kept totally up to date on the Catholic Church's moral pronouncements. As an institution, the only thing that can now redeem it is seppuku.
What are you confused about? Men can be women. Women can be men. Thus men can be wives and women can be husbands. This is in the catechism of the church of woke.
I’ve got another one too — what if a man has a wife and the only way he can be aroused enough to have sex with her is if he fantasizes about men? Thus every time the man has sex with his wife he must fantasize about sexual acts with men. Disordered or ordered according to the catechism of Catholic Church?
I have a hypothesis that celibacy emerged as a virtue for priests from the painful and resentful depths of self-hating and self-ignorant gay men. Or bitterly envious losers. The two top competing hypotheses for the formation of the catholic priesthood.
The man who can only get aroused enough to have sex with his wife if he fantasizes about men probably should never have gotten married. But I'm not telling you anything you don't already know.
But yes, sexual acts (including fantasies) that don't take place within marriage & are ordered to procreation would be considered disordered by the Catholic Church. So basically most human beings, whatever their sexual orientation, fall foul of Church teaching.
Why are you so hostile to celibacy? Any why would you presume that a desire to live a celibate life could only come from resentful self-hating, "self-ignorant" gay men? Or that celibacy is a consequence of someone being a "bitterly envious" loser? Can you really not imagine that there could be people in the world that are not like you AND are also decent? Or is it your habit to judge people you don't know or understand?
A lot slow on this reply, but I would like to re-emphasize what I specifically wrote: "celibacy as a virtue for priests". Thus, my "hostility toward celibacy" is only directed at it when conceived as virtuous (and more specifically for catholic priests). If a person is celibate but does not view it as virtuous and sensuality in general as sinful or morally inferior / suspicious, then that person would not fall into the class of people who view "celibacy as a virtue" and thus my hypothesis would not relate to them. I suggest you read things I write in the future more carefully. Or is it your habit to judge people you don't understand?
Just to be clear: celibacy isn’t so much a virtue as it is a requirement for certain vocations. The virtue connected to mastering and/or properly directing sexual desires/urges would be chastity, which everyone, whatever their vocation, can and should strive for. And sensuality isn’t in and of itself sinful; like everything else in life, it has its proper place, but can become sinful when pursued in an improper context and without the desire for the good of the other.
The reason the Catholic Church okayed desire but not the actual acts was because they were worried the transgender males would get pregnant now that they identified as women; plus since abortion was frowned upon they didn’t want the newly identified woman to experience that as well. The issue of women who have a penis and an abortion is much under reported but a national tragedy nonetheless by the Catholic Church.
What? You deny that people who were born biologically male but have since transitioned to identify as as a woman can’t get pregnant?! How very bigoted and narrow of you.
The only hate is coming from the left in the form of censoring views on campus, defunding the police, looting, rioting, voter fraud, forcing religious groups to provide abortion and recognize gay marriage, refusal to crack down on immigration, threatening justices of the court. A real libertarian supports religious freedom. You are a demented, bigot leftist. I lost relatives in the holocaust. Do not talk to me about religious bigotry. Gays are some of the most intolerant people I know. I am also a gay man but they do not speak for me
I agree. I would argue the old right, like Garett Garett, Rose Wilder Lane and Isabel Patterson, were probably the last of the truly classical liberals (libertarians). Most of their warnings for Americans sadly came true.
I also don't think any of the framers would recognize the left today as a derivation of their philosophical ideals; even the strongest supporters of government at the time: namely, Adams and Hamilton, would align themselves with today's libertarian party, or the Ted Cruz, Ron Paul wing of the republican party. It's quite strange, but the media today would call the framers "hard-right", "totalitarian," and warn the citizens about their "populism."
Today, the country is more like the Soviet Union, than the "sons of liberty"
This is so ridiculous. Certainly plenty of hate is coming from the "left" , but the "right" has simmered in hatred for decades; its just old news. The old Christian "moral majority" still hates, it just doesn't have the same power it once had. So it is generally more likely to express their hatred wrapped in euphemism. The fact you call someone a "demented, bigot leftist" yet don't even recognize your own hatred is kind of sadly ordinary for our times.
Unfortunately, even "religious freedom" has its limits, as no state should allow a cult to sacrifice children to their god. I hope your "libertarianism" doesn't make you that demented.
This individual posted a nasty tirade condemning middle America and its values and traditions. The left preaches tolerance but advocates killing justices of the court, disinvesting in business that do business with Israel, wants to force religious groups to sanction abortion and gay marriage, defund the police, oppose voter ID laws, immigration enforcement, fracking. The media, academy are bastions of intolerance toward those who do not want to live their lives according to their bible The New York Times editorial page and the ACLU. I am not part of the moral majority but I am concerned about the decrepit state of American culture, the family and the values that nurture a civil society. I agree that every freedom has it's limits and needs to be tempered with restraint and common sense but I live in New York that has surrendered in the war against violent criminals, that refuses to do anything about the anti-semitism prevalent in our city or the unsafeness of our schools. Gun owners are demonized, unions are let off the hook for the rotten education their members provide. I believe in morality and I am especially sensitive to attacks on religion by leftists as I lost relatives in the Holocaust and religious people are still being persecuted all over the world. I am a traditionalist not so much a libertarian and although imperfect I try to live by the tenets of my religion and respect the rights of others to do so but I will not remain quiet when the left talks about tolerance and acts in ways contrary to their professed tolerance of others.
You are not alone in your thoughts snd opinion. The easily identifiable trolls posting anti white / anti religion garbage in this comment section are tiresome and a bit stupid.
Whites were the first rioters and looters (kkk domestic terrorists). Remember "red summer" wherein hundreds of Blacks were massacred across the South by white racists? And black owned buisneeses, homes, and churches were destroyed. White racist authoritarianism (Jim Crow) was hell! Mass graves of Black victims of the Greenwood massacre was recently discovered in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The massare of 300 black residents there was covered up by whites for 75 years.
But we do navigate using the rear view mirror. When switching lanes, it’s valuable to look in the rear view mirror. And it’s generally valuable to look behind us to our blind spot. It can help prevent accidents. So… we probably should consider history when navigating our future.
Forcing someone to pay for the crimes of someone else is a dangerous game of historical culpability. How far should we extend this game?
Should the 15M whites enslaved by the ottoman empire demand reparations from their descendants? Should the South Koreans demand that Japanese pay for their crimes? Should Italy pay reparations to the rest of Europe for conquering them? Should the Mongolians pay reparations for conquering and enslaving half the known world? Should the victims of a Cebuano King, who had thousands of concubines, require reparations for slavery? Should the victims of lunatic Kings and queens be permitted to apply for reparations? Should the victims of Vikings be entitled to reparations? Should we demand reparations from the descendants of black southern slave owners (there were more than a few)? Should we demand that Spain pay reparations for colonizing the Philippines and most of the America's 400 years ago?
Is that really justice?
True justice requires recognizing that people are individuals, not groups. We are born free, with the will to choose our destiny, not shackled by the crimes of an ancestor. Stealing my labor, which is what reparations means, on the basis of some historical wrong is a massive injustice because I have not committed any crime.
I completely agree that we cannot let the Christians, and especially those crazy Catholics, be allowed to say or publish anything on homosexuality or transgenderism. These bible thumpers are hypocrites and only wish they had a sense of fashion. They should stay on their farm or row home and mind their own business. Also, we need to ban their hate filled propaganda starting with their sanctimonious bible. But this will not be sufficient as they have shown for centuries their animosity toward gay folks; we need to ensure a secret police presence in all their gathering places like churches and schools. We must bring them in to the mainstream American agnostic culture. Only then can we have peace and freedom from their hate filled discrimination and violence inducing propaganda. The sooner the better.
BTW, my paternal great grandmother getting brutally raped by a lowlife Scott-Irishman with impunity wasn't a story. My paternal grandmother having been refused emergency medical care at a White hospital because of the color of her skin, resulting in her death, wasn't a story. My aunt, who bled to death during childbirth, because a white hospital refused her emergency medical care for being Black, wasn't a story. My dad, having served in a segregated Jim Crow Army during WWII and returning home as a 2nd class citizen, wasn't a story. Me serving in the prison industrial complex for 34 years and tenaciously preventing super predators from breaching the fences to rob and rape you wasn't a story.
Christianity and Islam are two chauvinistic murderous cults repeatedly proven by historical events (facts). Just think of the prophet Mohammed and Jesus in a homosexual relationship? Lol!
I agree with you Monty! They are chauvinist and both should have their tax exempt status as religions eliminated, their holy books banned, and their places of worship and schools infiltrated so that these cults that spew hate speech can never see daylight in the USA again! We should also make every white pay reparations to every black starting in 2023. Enough is enough; time for them to pay up.
Deranged isn't a specific mental disorder outlined in the DMS-5, which is used by psychiatrists, clinical psychologists, and social workers to evaluate for mental disorders. Your credentials,? Lol!
Yea that’s right, the Jewish people believe in the Old Testament part of the Bible too! Them, the Catholics and the Christians are all the oppressors and have Religious Privilege.
Really? Gee, somebody’s got a bee in their bonnet!
I humbly submit that knowing ourselves as fallible humans is a key to understanding how we roll. And that there can be little that is negative of the disposition that we see God in everyone whether they are victims of socialist indoctrination or not. God Bless you🙏🏽
People used to think humans with a penis were males but I had to correct them too. They still don’t know that there is, albeit small, chance that they can get pregnant.
This is gold... "Harmful ideas, ignorance, bigotry have been causing severe oppression, and worse than oppression, death and misery. But if there is one thing we know its that for someone in political power whatever their intentions to put themselves in charge of deciding what the rest of us can say or believe is the most direct path to oppression and the most direct path to ignorance."
I admit that I am equally shocked and dismayed that so many people seem to think that silencing and canceling is an intelligent approach to disagreement. I am tempted to conclude that this is due to a generation of "got a trophy for competing" folks, but that is, frankly, too simplistic and a bit condescending as well. As Jonathan implied, it is impossible to "win" the battle of ideas by silencing your combatants. You must meet them on the field and defeat them openly and in plain view.
it’s one source of information but if you drive looking in the rearview mirror, how do you know what’s in front of you? Is the point
Whites are sowing the seeds of their own destruction by wielding power in the wrong way...not really seriously looking for answers to their self-destruction...shifting their bad behavior on someone else. Lies serves purpose... keeps them from accepting responsibility...
Dixiecrats switched to the GOP because they were vehemently opposed to civil rights for blacks. I live in the deep South and white Republicans now fly the Confederate flag.Your logical fallacies? The current GOP is the Trump party. White extremists like Richard Spencer, Jared Taylor, David Duke, etc. were thrilled to death after Trump was elected president. I used to rescue naive proud boys from Aryan Brother hood prison gang rape.
If anybody accepts The broad-based logical tenets your son is professing then we are doomed. People are allowed to have disagreements but there is no need to be disagreeable or aggressive with one another. Your son can do whatever he wants, other people can think whatever they want about it. Whatever somebody might choose to believe or not believe based upon what another person thinks about them is foolish. People need to stand up and be strong and accept that others acceptance or rejection of their life it's not hate it's just a difference of opinions.
If you're going to be bold and daring in life you need to have courage of your convictions and stand your ground. Forcing everybody to accept you, to love you, to support you, or to seek to cancel those that do not, is a Fool's errand and makes those who could choose to be strong weaker than they ever would have been otherwise.
It is a manifestation of hate to believe a person deserves the sort of punishment as has been variously described by the Catholic church for people who don't follow its creed. It not simply a " difference of opiniom." The perspective the Catholic church has towards homosexuals is hateful.
But, whatever, I see what and why they hate, and I judge it as immoral and shameful. I don't view hate itself as immoral though. Expressing or condoning hatred of what is innocent or good is immoral though. And I righteously judge the Catholic church as a doctrine of sin. And I do so without any desire to use violence to prevent them from sharing their views. I think Catholics should be legally allowed to live in sin. The sin they commit isn't at the level where I'd view it as something that should be a crime. Catholics should be allowed to legally worship imaginary evil deities and try to convince others to do the same. And I should be legally allowed to point out their sin. And not to be " disagreeable" with a person's sin, by the way, is often a sin.
Who cares what one group thinks about another, and how does it matter to any person in the real world - unless you give them validation by believing what they say or choosing to fight them?
Never in our history has there been an easier time to just 'walk away' from what you don't like, support, etc. Just because you may disagree with another's belief systems, be they religious or political, does not make it hate speech.
There will always be another person, another group, another belief system right behind the one you feel you must confront, to then be confronted. This leads to a Don Quixote empty life tilting at windmills, mistaking them for foes.
There are different kinds of “disagreement”. If a person expresses “disagreement”with another person’s belief or behavior and there is no enmity, then it is certainly not hate speech. However, some disagreements derive from enmity about another person’s belief or behavior.
You are correct with the statement “ Just because you may disagree with another's belief systems, be they religious or political, does not make it hate speech.”. But it’s banal. Most people when they disagree with another person’s religious or political belief systems aren’t just disagreeing about a fact they find irrelevant to what they care about. Political and religious systems are deeply personal. A persons sense of belonging and honor are wrapped up in them. Thus, challenging them, or disparaging them is going can affect people more. And likewise simply sharing them is sharing values, and not just facts. If those values express underlining hatred of something, it can constitute “hate speech”. If those values express underlining honor of something it can constitute … “love speech”?
Personally I find the phrase “hate speech” loathsome, as it has a connotation that hate is essentially immoral, and ironically the people who deploy the phrase deploy it with hate. They hate “hate speech.” “Hate speech”, the phrase, *is hate speech* when expressed by someone who thinks it’s immoral to hate.
And your argument for not confronting belief systems or other people because it will be like forever or something is silly. If people just let poisonous belief systems take over the world, Scientologists would be running everything. The notion that everyone should just abandon their confrontations out of futility is a sure path to failure. And a guarantee that those few who don’t, who are probably going to be the most obnoxious or evil in the world, will acquire the most power.
A person is only being quixotic if what they are battling is benign, when they think it is not. Catholicism isn’t benign, and we have 2000 years of oppression and witch hunts to prove that.
And Don Quixote’s life wasn’t empty at all. You must never have read the book. His life was full of adventure.
An empty life is one that always “walks away” from every confrontation, cowardly or complacent. A worthless life, useful to no one. A life without foes, is a life without friends.
Why single out just Catholics when most of the world’s major religions condemn homosexuality? Eg Baptists, Pentecostals, etc. seems like you hate Catholics.
Uhh, because the Catholic catechism was brought up in the original clip.
I don’t hate Catholics, but I may qualify as “hating” Christianity, the religion, in general, depending on the definition of the word “hate”. And Christianity would include Protestant Christianity, and not just Catholic Christianity. I also have a similar attitude about other major world religions like Buddhism.
Feel better?
I have to say that it seems that Glenn, usually reliant on data and evidence (n > 30 samples) is very reliant on anecdotes about his son here. I'm a Catholic. What our catechism is accused of saying here, it says. I stand by it and by the Church. That doesn't mean that I'm going to accost anyone, or that anyone is going to kill themselves now that the CCC says what it says, or that Catholics believing what we believe is really even wrong. It can be thought wrong here in a secular context, but that's not the end of the argument. I like the pluralistic argument put forth by Mr. Rausch, and I think many, many of us religious traditionalists were ready to make this accommodation in the culture with our LGBT fellow citizens until Big Business and Government got involved and started to make LGBT matters a moral litmus test for the people of this country. We have to dissent and disagree vehemently with each other, and that has to be OK, or this whole thing, this whole enterprise is over. Glenn Loury should take a moment and understand Christian and Catholic anthropology before simply falling back on anecdote and emotion.
agree completely.
The Catholic catechism is a heap of sin. But even though Catholics live in sin by worshipping their imaginary evil god, and often try to recruit others to, I believe they should face no threat to to their livihoods from their employers. I have no problem working or living alongside Catholics regardless of their sinful lifestyle, as long as they are sufficiently civilized. Catholics can be great citizens -- and they can be overall great people. And we should embrace people as citizens and neighbors from many faiths, even abominations like Catholicism.
How is the CCC a heap of sin, and how are we sinners? I agree, the faithful among us make excellent citizens.
Jehovah is an evil character. Worshipping imaginary evil characters is sinful. The CCC is grounded on obedience and faith in a monstrous fantasy. It promotes faith as a virtue, but not reason. Which isn't surprising because one needs to abandon reason to have faith in Christian mythology. Without reason as a virtue, any other potential virtue is going to be deeply susceptible to corruption, which goes along way of explaining much of the sordid history of the catholic church.
Catholics are sinners because they worship an imaginary evil deity and don't place reason as a fundamental virtue. It is shameful not to place reason as a fundamental virtue.
I didn't say faithful Catholics make great citizens, I just said Catholics can be great citizens --regardless of their faith. A faithful catholic can be a great citizen, or a fuzzy catholic can be a great citizen. People can be great citizens, despite the sin of being a catholic, that is the important part.
"Jehovah is an evil character"
From that paradigm how is it possible for anyone of faith to engage in a meaningful, good faith discussion?
And from that seed of thought how could one not feel that you would then say that anyone who follows the teachings of Christ is also not evil?
And then, the $64,000 question, what do you choose to say, feel, do, and pay for so that your belief that "Jehovah is evil" will be supported and furthered?
Naturally, it is your right to believe whatever you want, but it is also the right of all others to disagree. You have a right to believe what you want, but you also have a responsibility to accept the beliefs of others in a spirit of tolerance and respect.
Jeffrey peoples = troll
The Bible is filled with passages describing various people, ideas, and behavior as evil, wicked, or an abomination. Why are you so astonished when the people the main characters of the bible threaten with violence for stupid reasons don’t like the main characters?
Otherwise not evil people can worship evil characters out of foolishness and immorality. But not all immorality is at the level to categorize it as evil. Evil is a certain degree and kind of immorality. Everyone who loved Mao was not evil. Children loved Mao. They were ignorant and not old enough that their reasoning faculties had developed in any significant degree. It would be wrong to judge them as evil.
“ And then, the $64,000 question, what do you choose to say, feel, do, and pay for so that your belief that "Jehovah is evil" will be supported and furthered?”
Huh? I masturbate? I buy God Is Not Great? I comment on substack? I encourage Christians to denounce their religion?
“ You have a right to believe what you want, but you also have a responsibility to accept the beliefs of others in a spirit of tolerance and respect.”
I absolutely do not have any duty to “accept the beliefs of others in a spirit of tolerance and respect.” If “intolerance” and “disrespect” means simply expressing my contempt for a belief or ridiculing a belief, I have a right to do that. And others have a right to do that. Both morally and legally. We shouldn’t “respect” beliefs founded on irrational faith and the delusions of perverse souls. Let me be explicit: I disrespect your belief that people have a responsibility to respect all beliefs and I feel it is virtuous to disrespect some beliefs, including the one you just expressed. You should honor the previous sentence I wrote.
There is something in the US called the first amendment, which wonderfully establishes a legal right to express as much contempt and disdain a person wishes toward an idea. Some ideas are worthy of a lot of contempt. For example: the idea that humanity is so sinful it needed a crazy deity to murder its child, who is somehow itself, as a sacrifice for that sin so that same god doesn’t torture humanity due to that deities wrath for aeons is worthy of lots of contempt. And laughter.
You didn't say it, but I did, and it's true - Catholics make excellent citizens. You have some anger and I don't think Catholicism has anything to do with it. Best of luck to you.
Of course I have anger. It's righteous anger. But it's actually just a trickle in comparison to the *wrath* that flows through the Bible. And it is the wrath of lunatics. Not at all virtuous.
Does your comment to me reflect your thoughts about anger when you read about Jesus expressing it?
"Oh gee willickers he has some anger! Best of luck to him!" LOL.
There is nothing essentially wrong or shameful about anger. We *should* have anger sometimes. It's *virtuous* sometimes.
I understand this could be something very confusing, being someone who worships an evil imaginary being that disparages rationality and routinely equates love with obedience and slavery.
It would be virtuous for you to renounce the Catholic church, Jesus, and Jehovah. A trinity of wickedness.
And you are right, in some sense Catholicism has nothing to do with my anger. Anger is just is simply one part of my nature. And my reason and moral sense leads Catholicism to be one object of my anger, sometimes. I haven't actually thought of Catholicism much lately. After all, it has become relatively weak--say compared to the Church of Woke. I hear the pope is thinking of changing his pronoun.
And of course best of luck to you on your path of sin!
"There is nothing essentially wrong or shameful about anger. We *should* have anger sometimes. It's *virtuous* sometimes."
Couldn't have been said better Vladimir Illyich Lenin, when asked whether he wanted 10 million or 100 million dead to accomplish his aims and establish his belief system over man.
The Catholic church -actually most churches-would have a few things to say about my lifestyle, but I don’t feel remotely inclined to kill myself nor has anyone from the Catholic church told me I should, nor that I’m worthless. Too many pussies looking for affirmation. Why not be brave enough to live your life is what I say.
If a person doesn't need affirmation from anyone and can still be happy, they are probably a monster. And they should receive affirmation from no one.
Needing affirmation from others is a sign of narcissism. It's nice to have a comforting word from a loved one, but no one needs such a thing.
If a person doesn't need affirmation they are a sociopath. If a person does need it, but believe they dont, they are a delusional narcissist. Most humans need affirmation to thrive from the moment they are born. The minority who don't are soulless vampires. Unfortunately a disproportionate number manage to acquire power and spread evil lies about not needing love and fools believe it and spread it like ants that bring poison back to their colony believing it is food.
I can think of any number of people who never needed "affirmation" and were perfectly fine. I don't think John Roebling was looking for affirmation for a single minute as he was designing the Brooklyn Bridge. Neither was his son as he built the bridge while bedridden from Caissons disease. My grandmother drove a car until she was 92 and even then, still walked to her hair appointment every two weeks, and I know she never needed a pat on the head. Douglas Haig, leading the BEF on the Western Front in 1916? I bet affirmation was the last thing on his mind.
Such thoughts are the thoughts of late 20th Century Americans and as one, I know we are the weakest and most entitled people on the planet and these two things, our weakness and our need to be affirmed, are inextricably connected.
If you think none of these people needed affirmation and they weren’t sociopaths you are naive to how much affirmation people get without even realizing it. People generally “take for granted” the affirmation they get. The fact that your grandmother actually was *allowed to get a hair cut* and she wasn’t blocked from getting her hair cut because of her race, or her age, or her sex, or her religion, is a form of affirmation.
How often do you disgustingly pretend to eat the body of your god and drink it’s blood? How often do you kneel in front of a “holy man “ that represents in your mind the agent of an *omnipotent creator of the universe* and get a cracker stuck in your mouth? How often do you get that “pat on the head”?
You are fragile and you take for granted all the affirmation you receive. And then you express contempt toward people who express a need for affirmation. So disgraceful. And it’s ironic given how much ad nausea the New Testament goes on about how dependent and utterly powerless people supposedly are without Jesus and his divine affirmation.
Douglas Haig, without his men, without his comrades, without his friends, and without the affirmation he had received from them—without their loyalty and respect, he would not have been Douglas Haig.
Most of us, the ones who aren’t monsters, need affirmation like we need water. Unfortunately some people, to their shame, satiated with affirmation, forget they even need it, and ridicule the thirsty. Perhaps they should be exiled from civilization until they come crawling back, on their knees, begging for a “pat on their head” to humble their inflated and irrational pride.
White racist democrats created their own group in 1948 called the Dixiecrats. Dixiecrats were staunch segregationists and didn't support Civil Rights for Blacks. These Dixiecrats eventually switched over to the Republican Party. The late South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond (R), a devout segregationist, switched from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party because he didn't support the passing of Civil Rights legislation for Blacks. Late Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater (R), a staunch conservative and who ran against LBJ (D) for president, was adamantly against the passage of the 1960s Civil Rights Legislation. Many Black Republicans then switched over to the Democratic Party. Civil rights were the major reason white racist democrats (Dixiecrats) switched to the Republican Party. President Truman, a Democrat, was actually responsible for desegregating the armed forces in 1948, at which time white racists defected from the Democratic Party to create the Dixiecrats who eventually became far right-wing Republicans with anti-black views. LBJ twisted arms of white politicians and eventually signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, 1965 Voting Rights Law, and Equal Housing in 1968. The old radical Republicans who created Reconstruction and the Freedman Bureau for Blacks after the end of the Civil War are certainly not the same radical Republicans we have today. Today's Republican Party: THE SOUTHERN STRATEGY. --- "You start out in 1954 by saying, “Ni**er, n**er, ni**er.” By 1968, you can’t say “ni**er”—that hurts you, backfires.
So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much Part III: more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Ni**er, ni**er.” -- Lee Altwater, GOP STRATEGIST."
I recommend you read my essay on the history of the Democratic Party and its legacy of slavery. It seems you have imbibed a fountain of Democratic Party propaganda. The Democratic Party is the Party of Slavery. And it will continue to be until it reckons with its past and redeems itself. But I don't think it ever will.
https://minorityreport.substack.com/p/accepting-the-obvious
Black cinservatives?
The Symbolic Betrayal of the Black Race: In his book, “Black Labor White Wealth”, Dr. Claude Anderson relates," the term Uncle Tom is not an appropriate label for an individual who is “white on the inside and black on the outside” and sells out his race by placing his personal gains with whites ahead of the rights and gains of his people. Contrary to popular usage of the label, the character Tom was not the culprit in Uncle Tom’s Cabin. Uncle Tom was a brave man with dignity who cared about his family and race. The real villain was another black slave named Sambo. He was totally committed to the white master and used every opportunity to undermine the other slaves.Sambo, in many respects, was like today’s black conservatives. Sambo always followed the white slave master, Simon Legree, and offered to show him how to “tree the coons.” It was black Sambo who beat Uncle to death for both refusing to whip a black female slave or sell out his people. Uncle Tom tried to empower his people by undermining and beating the social structure whenever he could. Uncle Tom felt it was important to get his people across the river to freedom. He risked his life to do so. The Sambo character personifies a very successful social control construct created by conservatives. He was such a successful phenomenon that the concept he personified became a greater danger to blacks than Uncle Tom. As blacks move towards structuring policies of racial accountability, it will be very important for them to know who helps and who hurts the race. Sambo was the black slave character in numerous novels and movies who was willing to pick up a weapon and defend his white master against the approaching Union army or hide the master’s silver from Northern carpetbaggers. What is the difference between the fictional Sambo characters and today’s real-life blacks who join the conservative movement to argue against affirmative action, black reparations, and set-asides? They declare that the world is now color blind and are opposed to any policies requiring whites to share the socioeconomic burden that centuries of slavery and second class citizenship have imposed on blacks. Isn’t espousing a color blind, race-neutral, melting pot society, a moderate way of hiding master’s silver? What are black conservatives conserving when black America is burdened by poverty, crime, unemployment, homelessness, and other social pathologies? Based upon historical treatment alone, there should be a general antagonism between blacks and conservatives. Though conservatives claim that they are not racist, for centuries, they have opposed programs and policies to help blacks. Andrew Hacker, a white writer, provided insight on this in his new book, Two Nations: Black and White, Separate, Hostile, and Unequal. Hacker asserted that: “There persists the belief that members of the black race represent an inferior strain of the human species…Of course, the belief is seldom voiced in public. Most whites who call themselves conservatives hold this view about blacks and proclaim it when they are sure of their company. Since white conservatives share their true feelings only in the privacy of other whites, there is a strong possibility that black conservatives do not know how white conservatives truly feel about them.”
Nipping it in the bud, both parties are owned and controlled by the white dominant group. The white liberals just shuffle the chairs on a sinking ship to make blacks feel good, with symbolic gestures and lack of tangibles. White conservatives just sink the ship. Blacks should first concentrate on building black group wealth and power. Then create their own independent political party in order to effectively deal on a quid pro quo basis with both parties to better address their needs. What are black conservatives ( meritorious manumission negroes) conserving? From who? Increasingly depending on whites for basic necessities to sustain life is self destructive.
“ Increasingly depending on whites for basic necessities to sustain life is self destructive.”
We need to depend on other people to sustain the basic necessities of life. Judging our potential dependencies based on their race and not their character is foolish and a vice. If you haven’t found any people who happen to be white in your life you can trust, respect, and love, I can only suspect it’s because you have actively avoided it. Shunning good people who are white because of racial grievances is self destructive.
“ Blacks should first concentrate on building black group wealth and power.”
Blacks should first concentrate on letting go of any old irrational bigotries.
If you're looking for a comfort negro to enable your nonsense, I'm not that guy. I don't need any white affirmation, especially coming from an ultra conservative white guy who belongs to a group with a history of horrors committed against people of color. You have a very cognitive dissonance demeanor in dismissing critical causes and effects (facts). Racism is an economic relationship between groups - a team sport. Europeans got the headstart program with free African labor, genocide, colonization, and structural racism (white authoritarianism).
At the end of the day, it's about White preservation by any means necessary (look at the GOP abuse of power today in an attempt to dilute Black empowerment).
Whites are projected to be the new majority-minority by 2043. Many Whites are feeling great anxiety, fear, anger, and rage about losing power.
You came into other people's land and just took what you wanted.The slave can't be the massa. Blacks never marginalized whites in this country like Whites did to Blacks. Police presence in affluent communities is less because of resources. That's universal in every country I have visited in the world. Our relationship now is just a quid pro quo coexistence. I'm not your boy! Your paternal and convuluted concept of racism is highly self-serving (maintaining the white status quo of wealth and power). I have nothing to prove to you (waste of time and energy).
It wasn’t until conservative northerners started moving south that the South became Republican. So it had more to do with anti-union and low taxes and Cold War than segregation when Republicans finally gained power.
Reminds me of this song; That’s My Ni##a/
Lyrics
Main Results
Ooh, ooh
This that Philly-Bompton shit
Yeah, haha
I'm on the eastside rollin' with my westside ni##a ...”
“Riley Gaines 'ambushed and physically hit' after Saving Women's Sports speech at San Francisco State”. This was reported yesterday and she says she was hit by a “man in a dress “. The audacity of her to misgender! This is why we need free speech for some on campus but obviously can not allow Catholics and TERFs to voice their opinions. The man in the dress who hit her is the victim here because words are violence to her ears.
And when you say, "her ears," I assume you are referring to the ears of the man in the dress? Did I get that right? The astonishing modern plasticity of gender is making it hard to keep up. And the plasticity of the language that goes with it reminds me that centerpiece of the story of the Tower of Babel was not the tower, but the linguistic curse.
Yes, the man in the dress who did the punching is a her. Who knows? Maybe the man in the dress was pregnant and feeling like her day was ruined because of the speech.
Might have been hormonal irritability, just a simple matter of his encounter with Gaines coinciding with the time of the month when he was at his most feminine.
Biden’s rules thread the needle and will protect women’s NCAA scholarship sports from biological males. I’m sure Republicans will feign outrage that junior high girls cross country is being destroyed by biological males. ;)
The solution of course is to eliminate both men’s and women’s divisions and simply have one level playing field (pool, court, boxing ring, etc) in which both males and females can compete. No more “just for males”, just for females”, or need to make complicated legislation. Each public college, high school and grade school to have only one combined male and female teams for football, soccer, basketball ball, etc. The best will prevail and no need to separate them in anachronistic notions of gender. Trans rights are Human Rights!
Let the games begin! Everyone to the Colliseum! Bread and Circus'!
Why is it feminist say that want to compete equally with men but then cry foul when you suggest they get on the same field? Could it be that they are not equal in some ways? Of course it could. How could women not see that by demanding to be on the boys and men’s teams, the day would come when the boys and men would demand to be on the female teams?
Biden’s ruling threads the needle, sorry you are now butthurt that reason won the day.
What’s wrong with a level playing field for both males and females? Seems aligned with principles of diversity, inclusion and equity. Having separate teams is obviously less diverse (because it eliminates one gender), less inclusive (because it doesn’t include one gender), and equity (because it treats genders as unequal by having them on different fields).
Tuesday night was held what is probably the first-ever public, open, debate on Diversity-Equity-Inclusion (DEI) on a U.S. college campus. The Adam Smith Society and the MIT Free Speech Alliance are delighted. We sponsored this to show that polite but strong disagreement on hot-button political issues could be openly expressed at an American university--- and MIT, in particular. No police were present, not threats were made, and the debate and audience questioning proceeded respectfully--- though not because the debaters didn’t stake out their positions in very strong and opposing terms. Our press release is up on the web at https://www.mitfreespeech.org/press-releases-and-press-information.
MIT had to be sued by every marginalized group before they ever adopt Equity. Women, Hearing Impaired, Indians, etc all had to sue MIT for equity. I say MIT should immediately distribute all its wealth and land to blacks as reparations. Equity of outcomes cannot wait another 100 years. Cash out and distribute your wealth now MIT and you will finally achieve Equity. Anything less is deception.
Yep I’m in line for that handout.
Exactly! Handouts are good for you. They’re so much better than actually earning money and all the hard work that goes with that. Handouts are best to achieve Equity.
Equity of outcomes is not found in the Constitution, only in the minds of Marxists and Communists.
It’s core to BLM, SF Reparations Committee and coming to Federal legislation near you. We should welcome Reparations and giving or getting of half the wealth and land of Whites because it will achieve Equity (where we all have the exact same and we’ll like it).
Worked for South Africa!
It did not.
Reparations would end up helping white Republicans in the southeast—dollars have to be spent.
That’s exactly why we need to hurry up and take their wealth and land.
Milton Friedman called it a “helicopter drop”…we should have paid reparations in January 2021.
His so-called "argument" is as old as classical liberalism, which is better represented by today's right than the left. He is only restating what we already knew 300 years ago.
But Marxists don't care. The whole point of left wing totalitarianism is restriction of individual liberty, including speech, all under the banner of the common good.
Agree completely, there's certainly a strong undercurrent of safetyism here as well that those who want to engage and behavior perhaps considered outside the norm don't want anybody to ever question their decisions. Just not the way the world works, trying to force everyone to pretend to agree merely weakens them further. Live your life, do your thing, and let the dogs keep barking because the Caravan is moving on.
I think this is what separates the moderate left wing party of JFK from the neolib, radical left, whose utopia involves mechanized order, provided to you by their benevolent top-down, super-sized, federal government. Essentially, they want to give a centralized actor complete control over the means of production, all in the name of the common good, and for your safety and security. And if you didn't ask for their benevolent "protection", too bad, because you need them anyway.
It will lead to tyranny. Every tyrant in history has said to the people that all they needed was their weapons, and then everyone would live in paradise. They said all we need is your property, and everyone will live in unimaginable abundance and luxury. All we need is your trust, and everyone will live in peace. All we need is for you to curtail your speech and self expression, and the world will be a better place. Why don't you trust us? If you do, all your needs will be taken care of. We love you.
In reality, they demand obedience and the total destruction of your individuality, for their poorly constructed abstract conception of a Utopia. And when they realize they cannot reach their Utopia, they'll begin the witch hunt against fictious enemies that leads to Gulags, reeducation camps, followed by a 100M deaths, mostly from starvation. And while your family is starving, the "elites", "influencers" and all others deemed "necessary" and "essential" by state thugs will throw lavish banquets to satisfy their triumph over your conquered soul.
Well said. Any breach of the bill of rights calls for secession or war.
It seems not many peolple have read the gulag archipelago. Anytime someone runs on a platform of the government taking care of you, and helping you, and loving you, one ought to run in the opposite direction. We saw this same thing in Cuba. The totalitarian playbook is always the same. They will say we need lists of speech for the common good, for your own interest, for minorities, etc etc. They will start with pronouns, then expand the list until you cannot say anything at all. And until you own nothing and like it (because not liking it means gulags).
And for people who yell and scream minority as if they need special protection, well there is no greater minority than the individual. So any group imposing itself upon an individual is a thug, not a minority
I was called a “traitor” for opposing the Iraq War…and now everyone but Lizard Cheney agrees it was dumb and criminal.
That's incorrect. The argument in favor of free speech is a very old one. Classical liberalism, during the enlightenment, was predicated upon universality and inalienable rights.
The guest speaker is not arguing anything original; he's simply restating the universals that were promulgated during the enlightenment. We all have a right to self expression, and no special interest group, LGTBQ or otherwise, or state or individual has a right to legislate my speech using the shackles of the common good, which, incidentally, is precisely the argument the postmodernist neo-marxists make. They want to create lists of speech, that which is permissible and that which isn't, because, like Marx and Bentham, they are selfish enough to place their conception of the common good above individual rights.
The classical view is still the correct view. And I'm glad the speaker realizes that.
Bentham was certainly critical of a bill of rights
History is repeating itself now because of the changing demographics in this country. Ultra white conservatives are setting up sandbags to consolidate their raw power in the red states. Whites will be the new majority -minority population by 2043. Metro areas in the South (mostly minorities) are becoming increasingly powerful. However, red states are taking over local authority. Red states want to replace the feds authority in managing civil rights, etc.. Remnants of the old Confederacy are alive and well (states rights). That old script led to the 1st American Civil War. Are we approaching that point again with the very deep division in this country? Over 400 million firearms are out there.
Lets not forget which party was the Confederacy in the 1st civil war. If history does repeat itself, which I hope it does not, I suspect the party that will be fighting for slavery again will be the same one--just different masters this time around--if the way modern party ideologies relating to liberty reveals anything.
The Portuguese started the race to the new world with free African labor followed by 8 other European countries which pretty much started capitalism on steroids. Blacks weren't part of the race. They were the boot and loot. West African kings/leaders built wealth and power on the sale of Africans to the Europeans. In fact, they resisted the outlawing of the transatlantic slave trade during the early 1800s imposed by Britain and the U.S. Although slavery in America was still legal until the end of the Civil War. In early America, White Europeans were issued 2 billion acres of free Indian land. After finishing their 7-year contracts, white indentured servants were issued 640 acres of land and more based on the number of slaves they owned. The first Constitution is the White affirmative action/headstart program. The founding fathers first issued themselves thousands of acres of free Indian land before completing the writing of the Constitution. Insofar as the Black slave question, they met in secret with guards posted at all entrances and windows. The Constitution was written in broad and ambiguous language to camouflage the Black slave issue --- pursuit of happiness! Blacks were codified as 3/5 of a person. After the end of slavery, freed Black slaves left their plantations with no animals, no food, no tools, no money or firearms to protect themselves. Many were forced to return to the plantations as exploited share croppers, burying themselves deeply into debt at the land owners' stores. At that time, people could be thrown into jail for not paying their debts. The convict lease program was implemented to create free Black labor for White enterprises and the government. There was also the racist system of peonage. Blacks were literally kidnapped off the streets due to Black codes, i.e., vagrancy, being unemployed, preaching without permission, etc. The Freedman Bureau (financial aid) and reconstruction was set up by the radical Republicans to give assistance to freed slaves. These programs were very beneficial. However, the North withdrew union troops occupying the South which gave freed Blacks protection. The Freedman Bureau was eventually dissolved with the funds being transferred to southern land owners. The South began implementing brutal Jim Crow laws and policies, negatively affecting Blacks socio-economically and politically. The Supreme Court Decision, Plessy vs. Ferguson, legally enabled separate but equal policies. However, Blacks didn't really receive the same resources (i.e, school finance) or equal justice as whites. Jim Crow (semi-slavery) lasted for 100 years through the 1960s until the passage of the civil rights laws. Whites have mal-distributed wealth to themselves for the past 500 years based on slavery, Jim Crow, and ongoing structural racism. Blacks are 250 years behind economically due bring precluded from fully participating in American capitalism. Blacks only own and control 2% of the wealth in this country, which hasn't changed since the eve of the Civil War. Racism isn't about getting along. It's an economic relationship between groups of people competing for ownership and control of resources for wealth and power. Blacks need to develop their own economic infrastructure like other minority groups, i.e., Asians, Jews, Hispanics, and Arabs. Social integration damaged Black folks. Social integration isn't measurable; it can't be deposited into the bank. Blacks are increasingly losing the race with other minority competitors. The Koreans own and control the one billion dollar Black hair products industry --- manufacturing, distribution, and retail. Do Blacks own and control Korean restaurants or nail saloons? The Arabs, a much smaller minority group, owns and controls 98% of the gasoline stations and other small businesses in predominantly Black Detroit and throughout the country. Asians exchange money in their communities 10 to 15x more than Blacks in their communities before it leave. Blacks: Zero! If you ever get a chance, watch the YouTube video made in the 50s, "How to sell to the Negro." Nothing hasn't changed. Massa Biden got Black folks without any demands for real tangibles. Black folks d get another worthless symbolic gesture like Juneteenth. The old Black lady finally got her recognition and a pen from massa Biden. And the Asians got the final laugh. --- they're in the process of manufacturing Juneteenth products for 2022 Black celebrations. Snooze button back on. --- Joe Biden got elected. During a post election meeting with Black civil rights leaders in Atlanta, he related the Whites must pay more attention to Hispanics. For those of you Black folks who think you're in a comfortable coalition with Hispanics, you're fooling yourselves. *** [In his book, " Presumed Alliance: The Unspoken Conflict Between Blacks and Latinos and What It Means for America," the author, Nicolas C. Vaca, disdained a rainbow coalition and presumed alliance with Black Americans...they wanted to compete with Blacks for political and economic power...they felt that by the mere fact that they were more socially acceptable than Blacks in American society...they could gain socioeconomic benefits and become the nation's majority-minority population. Their goal, according to Vaca, was to displace Blacks in every way possible --- Dr. Claud Anderson, "A Black History Reader."
Blacks have adversaries on all flanks.
History may be repeating itself, but not how you're describing it here. One side is hostile to free speech, one side is using federal agencies to target political opponents, and one side is using the public education system as indoctrination camps to teach kids to hate each other. Amazing as it must be, it's not the red people doing that. I agree that there is division and the side that has most of the guns and knows how to use them is the one being targeted. That's not very sound strategy. Blue states, meanwhile, are devolving into chaos as criminals go unpunished, ironically victimizing the very minority communities these lenient prosecutors claim to champion.
That is why we need Reparations now! Mandated by the Fed to redistribute White money to blacks. The Democrats are in the best position now to execute a federal reparations program by taking 50% (aka “half”) of the money and land that every White over the age of 18 has and then giving it to a black person. Priority land will be given in order of suffering (eg black Trans, black Gay, black Woman, etc) until Equity with Whites and Asians has been met. We want Equity via Reparations Now!
This will end well
This may come off as splitting hairs to some but specifically what the Catholic Church considers to be disordered are homosexual acts. Merely experiencing same-sex attraction is not considered to be sinful according to the CC.
What about sexual desire for a man who is not your wife?
Personally I have not kept totally up to date on the Catholic Church's moral pronouncements. As an institution, the only thing that can now redeem it is seppuku.
A man who is not your wife?
What are you confused about? Men can be women. Women can be men. Thus men can be wives and women can be husbands. This is in the catechism of the church of woke.
I’ve got another one too — what if a man has a wife and the only way he can be aroused enough to have sex with her is if he fantasizes about men? Thus every time the man has sex with his wife he must fantasize about sexual acts with men. Disordered or ordered according to the catechism of Catholic Church?
I have a hypothesis that celibacy emerged as a virtue for priests from the painful and resentful depths of self-hating and self-ignorant gay men. Or bitterly envious losers. The two top competing hypotheses for the formation of the catholic priesthood.
The man who can only get aroused enough to have sex with his wife if he fantasizes about men probably should never have gotten married. But I'm not telling you anything you don't already know.
But yes, sexual acts (including fantasies) that don't take place within marriage & are ordered to procreation would be considered disordered by the Catholic Church. So basically most human beings, whatever their sexual orientation, fall foul of Church teaching.
Why are you so hostile to celibacy? Any why would you presume that a desire to live a celibate life could only come from resentful self-hating, "self-ignorant" gay men? Or that celibacy is a consequence of someone being a "bitterly envious" loser? Can you really not imagine that there could be people in the world that are not like you AND are also decent? Or is it your habit to judge people you don't know or understand?
A lot slow on this reply, but I would like to re-emphasize what I specifically wrote: "celibacy as a virtue for priests". Thus, my "hostility toward celibacy" is only directed at it when conceived as virtuous (and more specifically for catholic priests). If a person is celibate but does not view it as virtuous and sensuality in general as sinful or morally inferior / suspicious, then that person would not fall into the class of people who view "celibacy as a virtue" and thus my hypothesis would not relate to them. I suggest you read things I write in the future more carefully. Or is it your habit to judge people you don't understand?
Just to be clear: celibacy isn’t so much a virtue as it is a requirement for certain vocations. The virtue connected to mastering and/or properly directing sexual desires/urges would be chastity, which everyone, whatever their vocation, can and should strive for. And sensuality isn’t in and of itself sinful; like everything else in life, it has its proper place, but can become sinful when pursued in an improper context and without the desire for the good of the other.
The reason the Catholic Church okayed desire but not the actual acts was because they were worried the transgender males would get pregnant now that they identified as women; plus since abortion was frowned upon they didn’t want the newly identified woman to experience that as well. The issue of women who have a penis and an abortion is much under reported but a national tragedy nonetheless by the Catholic Church.
You've nailed it yet again.
What? You deny that people who were born biologically male but have since transitioned to identify as as a woman can’t get pregnant?! How very bigoted and narrow of you.
That is actually a very important point.
Can you elaborate on this? It seems sort of vague.
I may be restricted in my thinking but I’m certain CJ is referring to comedy acts that life is entirely based on.
Does anyone else think that the last part of this video undermines everything he said before it? Kind of disappointed in Rauch for including that.
The only hate is coming from the left in the form of censoring views on campus, defunding the police, looting, rioting, voter fraud, forcing religious groups to provide abortion and recognize gay marriage, refusal to crack down on immigration, threatening justices of the court. A real libertarian supports religious freedom. You are a demented, bigot leftist. I lost relatives in the holocaust. Do not talk to me about religious bigotry. Gays are some of the most intolerant people I know. I am also a gay man but they do not speak for me
I agree. I would argue the old right, like Garett Garett, Rose Wilder Lane and Isabel Patterson, were probably the last of the truly classical liberals (libertarians). Most of their warnings for Americans sadly came true.
I also don't think any of the framers would recognize the left today as a derivation of their philosophical ideals; even the strongest supporters of government at the time: namely, Adams and Hamilton, would align themselves with today's libertarian party, or the Ted Cruz, Ron Paul wing of the republican party. It's quite strange, but the media today would call the framers "hard-right", "totalitarian," and warn the citizens about their "populism."
Today, the country is more like the Soviet Union, than the "sons of liberty"
This is so ridiculous. Certainly plenty of hate is coming from the "left" , but the "right" has simmered in hatred for decades; its just old news. The old Christian "moral majority" still hates, it just doesn't have the same power it once had. So it is generally more likely to express their hatred wrapped in euphemism. The fact you call someone a "demented, bigot leftist" yet don't even recognize your own hatred is kind of sadly ordinary for our times.
Unfortunately, even "religious freedom" has its limits, as no state should allow a cult to sacrifice children to their god. I hope your "libertarianism" doesn't make you that demented.
This individual posted a nasty tirade condemning middle America and its values and traditions. The left preaches tolerance but advocates killing justices of the court, disinvesting in business that do business with Israel, wants to force religious groups to sanction abortion and gay marriage, defund the police, oppose voter ID laws, immigration enforcement, fracking. The media, academy are bastions of intolerance toward those who do not want to live their lives according to their bible The New York Times editorial page and the ACLU. I am not part of the moral majority but I am concerned about the decrepit state of American culture, the family and the values that nurture a civil society. I agree that every freedom has it's limits and needs to be tempered with restraint and common sense but I live in New York that has surrendered in the war against violent criminals, that refuses to do anything about the anti-semitism prevalent in our city or the unsafeness of our schools. Gun owners are demonized, unions are let off the hook for the rotten education their members provide. I believe in morality and I am especially sensitive to attacks on religion by leftists as I lost relatives in the Holocaust and religious people are still being persecuted all over the world. I am a traditionalist not so much a libertarian and although imperfect I try to live by the tenets of my religion and respect the rights of others to do so but I will not remain quiet when the left talks about tolerance and acts in ways contrary to their professed tolerance of others.
You are not alone in your thoughts snd opinion. The easily identifiable trolls posting anti white / anti religion garbage in this comment section are tiresome and a bit stupid.
I agree with many of your points.
Whites were the first rioters and looters (kkk domestic terrorists). Remember "red summer" wherein hundreds of Blacks were massacred across the South by white racists? And black owned buisneeses, homes, and churches were destroyed. White racist authoritarianism (Jim Crow) was hell! Mass graves of Black victims of the Greenwood massacre was recently discovered in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The massare of 300 black residents there was covered up by whites for 75 years.
Can’t comment on the history you’re talking about but I will say this “if you navigate by looking at the rearview mirror, that’s where you’re going”.
But we do navigate using the rear view mirror. When switching lanes, it’s valuable to look in the rear view mirror. And it’s generally valuable to look behind us to our blind spot. It can help prevent accidents. So… we probably should consider history when navigating our future.
Meh. Maybe you navigate by looking in the rear view mirror but its a far better strategy to look out the front windshield.
That’s why the drivers seat faces forward and not backwards.
Whites should pay trillions in reparations to blacks immediately.
Forcing someone to pay for the crimes of someone else is a dangerous game of historical culpability. How far should we extend this game?
Should the 15M whites enslaved by the ottoman empire demand reparations from their descendants? Should the South Koreans demand that Japanese pay for their crimes? Should Italy pay reparations to the rest of Europe for conquering them? Should the Mongolians pay reparations for conquering and enslaving half the known world? Should the victims of a Cebuano King, who had thousands of concubines, require reparations for slavery? Should the victims of lunatic Kings and queens be permitted to apply for reparations? Should the victims of Vikings be entitled to reparations? Should we demand reparations from the descendants of black southern slave owners (there were more than a few)? Should we demand that Spain pay reparations for colonizing the Philippines and most of the America's 400 years ago?
Is that really justice?
True justice requires recognizing that people are individuals, not groups. We are born free, with the will to choose our destiny, not shackled by the crimes of an ancestor. Stealing my labor, which is what reparations means, on the basis of some historical wrong is a massive injustice because I have not committed any crime.
Just because you use the words white and black like they mean something doesn’t mean they actually do. I stand with kmele ✌️
Are you addressing that to just me and not everyone else here who frequently use the terms white or black?
Throwing random thoughts into the wind and seein what comes back. Problem is it’s always you 😂😂
Juuuust kidding it’s not a problem 😉
Good for you. Don’t you detest those who, for a power trip, take on somebody else’s little spat, fight it, unrequested and un necessary?
I do wish it was only a battle left vs right these days. There’s a top-down fish to fry!
I completely agree that we cannot let the Christians, and especially those crazy Catholics, be allowed to say or publish anything on homosexuality or transgenderism. These bible thumpers are hypocrites and only wish they had a sense of fashion. They should stay on their farm or row home and mind their own business. Also, we need to ban their hate filled propaganda starting with their sanctimonious bible. But this will not be sufficient as they have shown for centuries their animosity toward gay folks; we need to ensure a secret police presence in all their gathering places like churches and schools. We must bring them in to the mainstream American agnostic culture. Only then can we have peace and freedom from their hate filled discrimination and violence inducing propaganda. The sooner the better.
This entire comment thread is hysterical.
Yeah that it is 😂😂
I assume this is satire...............coming from „libertarian „
This is really unproductive, I think you should retract this.
I think he’s a troll
Donald Trump, your cult leader, is the biggest troll.
Im not from the US, but don’t let your lack of facts get in the way of a good story
My first husband’s husband’s second cousin once removed had a hernia that wasn’t treated properly because she was Irish.
BTW, my paternal great grandmother getting brutally raped by a lowlife Scott-Irishman with impunity wasn't a story. My paternal grandmother having been refused emergency medical care at a White hospital because of the color of her skin, resulting in her death, wasn't a story. My aunt, who bled to death during childbirth, because a white hospital refused her emergency medical care for being Black, wasn't a story. My dad, having served in a segregated Jim Crow Army during WWII and returning home as a 2nd class citizen, wasn't a story. Me serving in the prison industrial complex for 34 years and tenaciously preventing super predators from breaching the fences to rob and rape you wasn't a story.
My eighth cousin twice removed had to hide from his maths teacher because he couldn’t spell polynomial. He was irish too.
So you want to ban unproductive speech as well as religious speech you find offensive? I can back that.
You are sounding a bit like a bigot yourself.
Ad Hominem attack for voicing an opinion.
It's Interesting that you attacked me with Ad Hominen comments. Lol!!!!
I’m an interesting person.
PS I’m not attacking you. I’m attacking your idea.
Facts are facts. Sounds like you’re here to bait people rather than have a real discussion of ideas
Christianity and Islam are two chauvinistic murderous cults repeatedly proven by historical events (facts). Just think of the prophet Mohammed and Jesus in a homosexual relationship? Lol!
I agree with you Monty! They are chauvinist and both should have their tax exempt status as religions eliminated, their holy books banned, and their places of worship and schools infiltrated so that these cults that spew hate speech can never see daylight in the USA again! We should also make every white pay reparations to every black starting in 2023. Enough is enough; time for them to pay up.
Oh God it’s Monty, our other somewhat deranged troll
Deranged isn't a specific mental disorder outlined in the DMS-5, which is used by psychiatrists, clinical psychologists, and social workers to evaluate for mental disorders. Your credentials,? Lol!
Great...Now I need to do some soul searching to figure out why shit like this captures my attention.
If you can solve that, you cure the Internet
...or perhaps disasociative disorder?
Suffering from borderline personality disorder?
Hey, folks, remember when Kanye got ostracized for saying Jews controlled media?
Now, look at the above comment, and tell me who the REAL bigot is.
Yea that’s right, the Jewish people believe in the Old Testament part of the Bible too! Them, the Catholics and the Christians are all the oppressors and have Religious Privilege.
Or maybe you’re a comedian? Not a very funny joke though...
Just giving voice to what so many want. Don’t shoot the messenger.
Ok, relax, victimhood incarnate - nobody's guns are out.
Really? Gee, somebody’s got a bee in their bonnet!
I humbly submit that knowing ourselves as fallible humans is a key to understanding how we roll. And that there can be little that is negative of the disposition that we see God in everyone whether they are victims of socialist indoctrination or not. God Bless you🙏🏽
I seriously thought that was a parody account. He/she can’t be real! 🤦🏽♀️
People used to think humans with a penis were males but I had to correct them too. They still don’t know that there is, albeit small, chance that they can get pregnant.
Some of the WASPs are going woke, so they are OK.
This is gold... "Harmful ideas, ignorance, bigotry have been causing severe oppression, and worse than oppression, death and misery. But if there is one thing we know its that for someone in political power whatever their intentions to put themselves in charge of deciding what the rest of us can say or believe is the most direct path to oppression and the most direct path to ignorance."